Best Possible Way for Scotland to Achieve Independence Before 1974

The Question Asked:

Starting in 1901, what sort of changes would be needed for Scotland to gain independence--sufficient so that it had full control of Scotland's resources--no later than by 1974?

Further Questions:

  1. If Scotland does achieve this level of independence, what would sort of nation would it be? Would Scotland become a nation similar to Norway, with the oil revenues invested to create a national fund used to provide all its tremendous state benefits? Would it become something else, such as Europe's Venezuela? (I find the latter hard to imagine, btw.
  2. How would Scotland's independence affect the rest of the UK? In particular, what the loss of most of North Sea oil revenue affect what remained of the UK? Would England, Wales, and all the other bits face economic collapse or would they keep calm and carry on? Is there anyway way for the remaining parts of the UK to beneftit from Scotland's independence? [One thing to consider: While some calculations I have seen state that currently the net money Scotland receive from treasury (transfers less taxes) exceeds the net revenues from the North Sea oil attributable to Scotland's territory, this apparently was not always the case. The North Sea oil revenues have been credited with, among other things, preventing the collapse of UK finances in the mid 1970s.]

As always, facts and figures to bolster your opinions are most appreciated, especially if they are from actual Scots. Unsupported opinions of a sweeping nature are less appreciated.
 
For England to realise that, in the modern world, it had no need of preventing a Scottish invasion (last done in 1745 when they got past the Midlands) and the risk from Spain or France using Wales or Ireland as a base to attack England was absent so the Union had no purpose and decided to leave the Union and pursue it's own destiny for the first time since the French seized the Throne a thousand years ago. I would suggest in the 1960's when the last of the colonies were being given independence (occasionally whether they wanted it or not.) After all, the occupation of Wales and Ireland was done by the French ruling classes of Britain and it was the Scots who last invaded whereas the English had to put up with a Scots Royal Family (after the French and Welsh and followed by the Dutch and Germans). An opportunity to return to St. Edmund as Patron Saint and the flag to the white dragon on a red ground. Time for England to revert to being a North Sea nation whose links should be with it's fellow North Sea nations whence the English came. Maybe a new looser Union with Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. The Doggerland Confederation........... Look East young man.

There may be a tongue in cheek here............
 
There was a Scottish home rule bill in 1914 that was passed by Parliament, and killed by the First World War.

According to the BBC website its powers would have included pensions, national insurance, labour exchanges and all "purely Scottish affairs."
The UK Parliament would have kept matters involving the crown, war, foreign affairs, national defence, immigration, trademarks, coinage, weights and measures, external trade, postal service, public loans to Scotland before the passing of the Act, and the collection of taxes.

Note this is the collection of taxes, not setting tax rates.
Education was run locally a the time (I think), and the NHS wasn't set up until the 1940's.

This was pretty much the same as the Irish Home rule bill of the same time, and looks to me like a federal U.K. in the making.

To make this happen, bring the bill forward 3 months, or delay the Archduke getting shot by 3 months.
 
Assume this passes before the war.

How are the next steps achieved? Would/Did the war strengthen or weaken bonds between Scotland and England?
There was a Scottish home rule bill in 1914 that was passed by Parliament, and killed by the First World War.

According to the BBC website its powers would have included pensions, national insurance, labour exchanges and all "purely Scottish affairs."
The UK Parliament would have kept matters involving the crown, war, foreign affairs, national defence, immigration, trademarks, coinage, weights and measures, external trade, postal service, public loans to Scotland before the passing of the Act, and the collection of taxes.

Note this is the collection of taxes, not setting tax rates.
Education was run locally a the time (I think), and the NHS wasn't set up until the 1940's.

This was pretty much the same as the Irish Home rule bill of the same time, and looks to me like a federal U.K. in the making.

To make this happen, bring the bill forward 3 months, or delay the Archduke getting shot by 3 months.
 
This loosens the control of Westminster, and devolves nearly everything that isn't international affairs.
What happens next?
Could go any way.
Given that, in OTL, the push for devolution disappeared for 50 years, and this gives a huge slice of it, does the demand for more go away completely?
Or does the existence of a local government fan the desire for more?
"The west lothian question" becomes relevant.
English regional devolution?
Welsh home rule?
If butterflys have Scottish home rule in place then Irish home rule must also be in place, and possible butterflys are delayed Irish Independance, or variations in the way it was achieved. How does that affect Scottish events? Good question.
How is the union parliament affected?

What about the dominions, and places like Gibralter, Malta, etc.?
Could they get the same type of deal, or representation at Westminster?
 
The existence of the Republic of Ireland -which doesn't cover all of Ireland- was due to a series of almost ASB "own goals" by the British establishment, both Liberal and Tory. It would in fact make for a good DBWI topic.

Home Rule actually doesn't do it and the argument in favor of Home Rule always was that it would satisfy nationalism while staving off more radical measures. Scotland has Home Rule now of course, and has had it for twenty years. Northern Ireland has also usually been in some sort of Home Rule status, with the obvious exception of a period of direct rule from Whitehall. And if Pitt the Younger had never abolished the Irish Parliament in the first place, I don't think there would be much of a republican movement in Ireland.

Now one thing that I think has been helping the nationalists/ separatists in Scotland now is a sense that without the empire and with the United Kingdom's reduced place in the world, the union really isn't worth maintaining. Accession to what became the European Union doesn't help this. This would have applied to Ireland as well, as it applies to Catalonia for example. But note that with this going on, Scotland is not (yet) independent after twenty years of Home Rule, and forty-five years of European Common Market membership and the SNP breakthrough.

Now having said that, there are two post-1900 ways to get an independent Scotland. The most obvious is a successful Sealion invasion, followed by the Nazis setting up an independent Scottish state. I've gathered that Sealion is almost ASB itself is the consensus around here. The second is a UK defeat in either World War, though defeat in the first is more likely. That weakens the prestige of the Union enough. Just the bloody stalemate in the first World War, plus the attempt to extend conscription to Ireland at a critical moment, was enough to push Ireland away. A possible third route is a dictatorship in the UK, which is then overthrown, also weakening respect for the Union, but keep in mind that Spain survived exactly this.
 
For England to realise that, in the modern world, it had no need of preventing a Scottish invasion (last done in 1745 when they got past the Midlands)
That wasn't a Scottish invasion, but a Jacobite invasion. More Scots fought against the Jacobites than for them and Edinburgh Castle never fell. I also urge you to look up why Lochiel was called "the Gentle Lochiel." The last Anglo-Scottish War was between 1650-1651 which resulted in the occupation of Scotland until the restoration of the Stuarts in 1660.
and the risk from Spain or France using Wales or Ireland as a base to attack England was absent so the Union had no purpose and decided to leave the Union and pursue it's own destiny for the first time since the French seized the Throne a thousand years ago.
There was a vote to dissolve the Union in 1713 which only failed by four votes in Parliament. All you need to do is switch the votes of three Peers and the Union would have been gone.
I would suggest in the 1960's when the last of the colonies were being given independence (occasionally whether they wanted it or not.) After all, the occupation of Wales and Ireland was done by the French ruling classes of Britain and it was the Scots who last invaded whereas the English had to put up with a Scots Royal Family (after the French and Welsh and followed by the Dutch and Germans).
As the last Anglo-Scottish War was fought entirely in Scotland with the Scots being occupied for nine years afterwards, so this is kind of untrue(although the Scots had sworn to invade but were invaded before they had the chance just to be clear.) Also, Scotland was never a Colony in any way post 1707.

Sorry for picking on this post, but the Jacobites=Scotland is a bugbear.

As for the answer, in my opinion it is to have the Scottish Covenant Association succeed in the late forties/early fifties in their bid to have a Devolved Parliament within the Union, I mean to say in otl, they gained a million signatures out of a Scottish electorate of around 3.9 Million. Had they been listened to, you could see a Parliament in place for 1951-53.

From then, the main issue is getting a Nationalist Party to rise. It would take something big to cause the collapse of Labour or the Scottish Unionists at this stage, but say Suez goes wrong or something along these lines, you could get a Nationalist government. By 1974 is stretching it but events could cause it to happen. I mean to say, you would have had twenty years of home rule. After this, a referendum and Jocks your uncle. A big blocker though would be the continued existence of heavy industry in Scotland reliant on the British state.
 
Last edited:
That wasn't a Scottish invasion, but a Jacobite invasion. More Scots fought against the Jacobites than for them and Edinburgh Castle never fell. I also urge you to look up why Lochiel was called "the Gentle Lochiel." The last Anglo-Scottish War was between 1650-1651 which resulted in the occupation of Scotland until the restoration of the Stuarts in 1660.

There was a vote to dissolve the Union in 1713 which only failed by four votes in Parliament. All you need to do is switch the votes of three Peers and the Union would have been gone.

As the last Anglo-Scottish War was fought entirely in Scotland with the Scots being occupied for nine years afterwards, so this is kind of untrue(although the Scots had sworn to invade but were invaded before they had the chance just to be clear.) Also, Scotland was never a Colony in any way post 1707.

Sorry for picking on this post, but the Jacobites=Scotland is a bugbear.

As for the answer, in my opinion it is to have the Scottish Covenant Association succeed in the late forties/early fifties in their bid to have a Devolved Parliament within the Union, I mean to say in otl, they gained a million signatures out of a Scottish electorate of around 3.9 Million. Had they been listened to, you could see a Parliament in place for 1951-53.

From then, the main issue is getting a Nationalist Party to rise. It would take something big to cause the collapse of Labour or the Scottish Unionists at this stage, but say Suez goes wrong or something along these lines, you could get a Nationalist government. By 1974 is stretching it but events could cause it to happen. I mean to say, you would have had twenty years of home rule. After this, a referendum and Jocks your uncle. A big blocker though would be the continued existence of heavy industry in Scotland reliant on the British state.

Er. You may have not read my post all the way through. "There may be a tongue in cheek here............" although there is a modern tradition of the English being deprived of any national status outside sport, being treated as not being a nation but only mere regions (of what one might ask?)

The Scots=Jacobite thing is firmly embedded in popular Scots history. Mentioning that Scots were major players in suppressing the Jacobites and Highlanders and it was Scottish landlords that implemented the clearances doesn't sell shortbread. Don't misunderstand me I support Scottish independence. It would help reduce Scottish migrants coming to England and taking our jobs, receiving benefits and straining education, housing and health care....... Did I mention a tongue in cheek?
 
Er. You may have not read my post all the way through. "There may be a tongue in cheek here............" although there is a modern tradition of the English being deprived of any national status outside sport, being treated as not being a nation but only mere regions (of what one might ask?)
To be honest, the part I took as tongue in cheek were the last two sentences.
 
Top